Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

[GNTLGNT]

This is one of those typical pro-gun fantasy scenarios.

...nope, gotta disagree there Bob...as gun-"nut"...my pro-gun fantasy involves Heather Locklear and a "concealed" firearm...just sayin'...

[Todash]

...nope, gotta disagree there Bob...as gun-"nut"...my pro-gun fantasy involves Heather Locklear and a "concealed" firearm...just sayin'...

What has been seen ...

[exzel]

For those who like to bandy about the term “gun nut”… could you please provide and explanation for it?

[Todash]

Well I don't know about all of that, and I would think it is mostly opinion... unless you can provide those stastics you speak about. But what I do know is law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year - or about 6,850 times a day.

I've seen that statistic ... but IIRC, the study from which it was derived has received criticism for its methodologies. For example, the study reported that "guns were used many times more often for self-defense in burglaries than there were reported incidents of burglaries of premises whose occupants were awake and armed with firearms." While that might mean a lot of burglaries went unreported, it, along with other factors, casts fairly significant doubt on the reliability of that study's findings.

Of course, as with "number of people saved by guns," accurate self-defense figures are difficult to come by, largely because they rely on self-reporting. Any study that depends mainly on self-reporting must reasonably be assumed to have a larger margin of error than studies that base their findings on objective observation of facts. That doesn't mean people don't successfully defend themselves with weapons; of course they do. It simply means it would be much more difficult to determine true numbers, and much easier to make those numbers say what you want them to say. But the cold, hard facts are that high rates of gun ownership correlate strongly to high rates of violence, gun violence specifically.

[fushingfeef]

A University of Pennsylvania study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed than those not carrying. When victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher (http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nd-killed.html)

A Harvard study in 2007 found that US states with higher levels of gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide ( http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fi...rship-and-use/)

But on the other hand, those are "liberal" universities, so they can't be trusted right?

[GNTLGNT]

For those who like to bandy about the term “gun nut”… could you please provide and explanation for it?

...well, I don't "bandy it about", but it's what the so-called anti-gun crowd calls those of us who might have-shall we say-an overwhelming passion for our stance as gun owners...

[fushingfeef]

I don't use the term but I would think it's meant as "gun enthusiast". I call myself a Stephen King nut in the same way.

[exzel]

This is one of those typical pro-gun fantasy scenarios. They always seem to envision these scenarios where they have lots of time to take out their weapon and dispense some frontier justice.

Anyway, to get back to your question, answers to your one highly charged fantasy scenario don't mean anything about what's best for all situations, do they? Heck, my life would be a lot safer if I wore kevlar clothing and safety goggles and drove a tank on my morning commute, that doesn't mean everyone should do it! Why go to the mall at all, on any day, there might be a mass shooting there!

And I'm sick to death of the freaking paranoid fantasies of gun nuts who think they need an arsenal to "protect themselves from the gubmint." Those fantasies are stupid. And rewriting history to make themselves feel better about owning 50 guns is the pinnacle of self-absorbtion. And their dicks don't get any bigger, either.

Jon Stewart got this one right, about the gun nuts being so obsessed with a fantasy dystopian future that they ignore the dystopian present:

Interesting. We shouldn’t be exercising our constitutional rights because we concern ourselves over the possibilities of mass shootings, but we should be enacting tougher gun legislation for law-abiding citizens because of it?

[Todash]

For those who like to bandy about the term "gun nut" ... could you please provide and explanation for it?

I don't think the term is particularly conducive to a healthy discussion, but I can't say I never think it. And when I do, here are some reasons why (usually it's more than just one of these):

• The person in question does not seem to be concerned with any other forms of liberty, but harps on his right to own guns.
• The person in question seems convinced he is in imminent danger of having all his guns taken away.
• The person in question has an arsenal buried in his yard. (I am not joking about this; I worked with someone like this once. Before he revealed this to me, he kinda gave off a jittery vibe that made me nervous. After he revealed this to me, I stayed the hell away from him whenever possible.)
• The person in question seems to lack the ability to think critically on the subject of guns and gun ownership.
• The person in question seems to think that he has a right to own any number of guns with no restrictions.

I don't think a gun owner, or even a gun enthusiast, automatically classifies as a gun nut. I don't even think a gun collector is necessarily a gun nut. I know many people who own guns, and only a few would I classify as "nuts."

[atomicinchworm]

People who are completely unwilling to accept or see that maybe some form of control or registration or regulations would be beneficial are gun nuts.

People completely unwilling to look at actual statistics and throw around red herring scenarios are gun nuts.

People who are afraid that the guvmint is going to leave them defenseless by taking away large clips or assault rifles are gun nuts.

People who want to take suicides and accidents out of the deaths by gun equation are gun nuts. Do those deaths not matter? I say they matter. Can suicidal people die via other means? Sure, but a lot of the times those fail and they never try again. Suicide is a passing intent and feeling. A good friend of mine's mother shot herself in the head a couple of years ago. Who is to say that if she did not have a gun handy that it would not have happened? Sure, she could have tried another method to suicide, but chances are good she would have been found in the middle of it since she lived with her boyfriend at the time.

I'm not looking to stop all gun violence ever. That's impossible. But I think practical training, a written test, licensing, registration, and clip size limits would be reasonable. Maybe insurance on the gun. You have to do all of that with a car, why should a gun be any different?